Bug#746715: the foreseeable outcome of the TC vote on init systems
Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:
> An Ubuntu developer just brought the following Debian changelog entry to
> my attention:
> tftp-hpa (5.2-17) experimental; urgency=low
>
> * Removing upstart hacks, they are ugly and upstart is dead now.
> Since various members of the Technical Committee argued that choosing a
> default would not prevent Debian from supporting other init systems, I
> would like to hear from those members how they think this should be
> addressed.
Well, one, in the abstract this seems like a bad idea. I certainly don't
intend to remove upstart support in my packages, any more than I would
reintroduce a bunch of PATH_MAX expressions and intentionally drop Hurd
support.
In terms of what to do about it, I think we need more details,
specifically around why the maintainer felt that the upstart support was
"ugly" and involved "hacks." Removing half-implemented or
poorly-implemented code may be appropriate in some circumstances even for
things that we do want to support, and may involve some degree of
judgement call (although I'd hope the maintainer would accept cleanups
instead of removal). Do you know why the maintainer felt that way about
the upstart changes?
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: